[Incubator] platforms discussion

[Jody Garnett]

Bruce:

I think these two questions: open source platforms, and handling of dual
license, would be a good topic for the AGM next week. The actual AGM is a
recorded video and the time slot is intended to be a Q&A?

Jody

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:31 PM Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jody,
>
> These thoughts extend on your ‘there can be only one’ comment below.
>
> I think that we in the Incubation Committee and our potential future
> incubating projects would benefit from our better defining what type of
> open source project we will support.
>
> Greg Troxel contributed valuable insight into a discussion that we were
> having in the OSGeo Standards list on the proposed OGC/OSGeo MOU. See [1]
> for context.
>
> With apologies to Greg for my paraphrasing, I understand Greg’s arguments
> to strongly differentiate between open source projects that are subject to
> proprietary relicensing and those that are not.
>
> Greg contributed the blog link at [2] as part of the discussion. This is
> an insightful read.
>
> If we had had a clear policy on the type of open source project that we
> are willing to support during the unfortunate situation with the Rasdaman
> Incubation vote, we could have avoided a lot of the angst and
> miscommunication that occurred on both sides.
>
> So before we progress too much further on the ‘Platforms’ discussion, I
> think that it would be beneficial to resolve the OSGeo Incubation supported
> open source model issue definitively.  I believe that this will make it
> much easier to progress the platforms discussion, and future incubations.
>
> While I have concerns over the interpretation of what a Contributions
> Licence is, I believe that the links at [1] and [2] are a good starting
> point to get this sorted out.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/001274.html
>
> [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:59, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> It is kind of like the “highlander-principle” if the phrase “there can be
> only one” applies … you are not open source.
>
> Jody
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:38 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is a useful definition of a framework (quite technical) here
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
>>
>> Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them
>>> from libraries or normal user applications:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
>>>
>>>    - inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or
>>>    normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not
>>>    dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]
>>>
>>>
>>>    - default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This
>>>    default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of
>>>    no-ops.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by
>>>    selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific
>>>    functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is
>>>    not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify
>>>    its code.
>>>
>>> While all of that is technically true it is perhaps a bit too detailed
>> for our purpose.
>>
>> The core distinction is earlier in the thread:
>> - Does your open source code support a single website? Or is is setup for
>> use by others?
>> - Are you building a community around services? This is a user community
>> ...
>> - Are you building a community around software? This is still a user
>> community ...
>> - Are you building a community around software where the software source
>> code is available to look at? This is still a user community ... looking at
>> you Elasticsearch
>> - Are you building a community around software with shared
>> responsibility and risk (enabled by a license to view *and change* source
>> code)? This is a free or open-source community (depending on which license
>> chosen by the group)
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 18:32, Bruce Bannerman <
>> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jody,
>>>
>>> I don’t expect anything constructive from the AGM. People won’t have
>>> time to reflect.
>>>
>>> …now what is a ‘Framework’?
>>>
>>> I suggest that we define what we support and take it from there. We can
>>> always adjust, if required.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On 4 Sep 2021, at 05:27, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Thanks Bruce,
>>>
>>> I did not get anything useful from the board; perhaps it is a subject
>>> for the AGM.
>>>
>>> For now the way forward seems to be to recast the platform as a
>>> framework and ensure the resulting software stack and be picked up and run
>>> independently (with a quickstart or similar).
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 21:57, Bruce Bannerman <
>>> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jody,
>>>>
>>>> Personally:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - I don’t mind a situation where an open source project attempts to
>>>>    develop and maintain software that is intended to integrate a number of
>>>>    software components into a working product which could perhaps be called a
>>>>    platform.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - I can see many situations where the ‘platform’ might deploy both
>>>>    components and the platform’s specific customisations concurrently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - However, I would not support a situation where that product (or
>>>>    platform) can only be implemented once. I’d prefer that it can be
>>>>    implemented many times by different organisations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - While such a ‘platform’ project would look after its own
>>>>    "integration related software", I’d see that the individual components
>>>>    would be subject to their own open source project community’s governance
>>>>    practices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - This could get quite messy, when the integration related software
>>>>    is actually a customisation of an existing software component with its own
>>>>    open source community already in existence. This would require careful and
>>>>    close collaboration between both communities…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That will do for now, let’s see what others think.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Jul 2021, at 01:21, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is indeed overloaded, and no I cannot clarify as the applicants that
>>>> are coming in are slightly different from each other.
>>>>
>>>> Turn-key portals such as
>>>> https://www.osgeo.org/choose-a-project/information-technology/portal/
>>>> these showcase a range of projects. Some like geomoose are presented as
>>>> frameworks, others like GC2/Vidi are presented as a platform.
>>>>
>>>> I would be cautious about an open source project that just supports a
>>>> single website (like http://github.com/mapstory), but perhaps that is
>>>> my own bias? There is an advantage to users of a platform being able to
>>>> review the code responsible for the service they are using. But this
>>>> represents new ground for OSGeo, hence the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I also brought this discussion to the osgeo board list; so we do not
>>>> need to decide on our own.
>>>> --
>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 18:56, Bruce Bannerman <
>>>> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jody,
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of a platform is quite overloaded and means different
>>>>> things to different people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please clarify what you mean by ‘platform’?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 12 Jul 2021, at 18:30, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Discussion topic for incubation committee:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We are getting applications from platforms seeking to join OSGeo.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What do you think?
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Jody Garnett
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Incubator mailing list
>>>>> > Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> --
--
Jody Garnett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20210924/33386ab9/attachment-0001.html>